MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2768044503 · doi:10.2118/188378-ms

Repeatability of a Highly Stable Permanent Seismic Source Evaluated Through Long-Term Operation at the Aquistore CO2 Injection Site

2017· article· en· W2768044503 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Masashi Nakatsukasa, Hideaki Ban, Akiko Kato, Kyle Worth, Don White

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
FundersPetroleum Technology Research Centre
KeywordsRepeatabilityGeologyAmplitudeSubmarine pipelineSeismologyWaveformGeodesyGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringOpticsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Time-lapse seismic is often used for reservoir monitoring. Although some case studies have been reported, especially for offshore oil fields, similar onshore Abu Dhabi studies have been limited. Onshore monitoring challenges are mainly due to hard carbonate reservoir rock, in which fluid displacement invokes only minor changes in rock properties. Moreover, complex near-surface structures create strong surface-related noises such as surface waves and elastic scattering. These noises significantly degrade the repeatability if repeat data are recorded with positioning error of 1 meter. To address the problems above, permanent reservoir monitoring has been spotlighted recently. Although permanent receivers are widely used for seismology, few studies of permanent seismic sources have been reported. In this study, we demonstrate a permanent source, Accurately Controlled Rotational Operated Signal System (ACROSS), which has a fixed position and excites highly repeatable seismic waves by rotating an accurately controlled eccentric mass. We deployed ACROSS at the Aquistore CCS test field onshore in Canada and recorded the wavefield with permanent receivers buried underground. The ACROSS system was operated several times throughout one year. The data acquired in a continuous 45 day operation were analyzed to calculate variation of amplitudes. The result indicated that we had obtained very stable waveforms with less than 3% variation if the data is stacked sufficiently. We also compared the two datasets acquired at different times of the year by calculating the normalized root mean square (NRMS) as a repeatability index. The histogram showed that the peak of NRMS distribution approached ~15% with only front and back mute processing. These results support our conclusion that an ACROSS system has potential to be used for reservoir monitoring in onshore fields by providing highly repeatable data for an extended time period.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.238 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques→French-language works237,207→